The Difference Between Memoirs and Oral History

Alireza Abd-al-rahman
Translated by Kianoush Borzouei

2025-8-25

I extend my congratulations to the dedicated team behind the Oral History website on the occasion of publishing its 700th issue of the electronic weekly. On this occasion, and in accordance with the request of the respected Ms. Kamal-ad-din—whose tireless efforts are integral to the existence of this website—I offer a few points regarding oral history to readers and audiences.

1. Despite the abundance and diversity of scholarly resources and theoretical offerings on the subject of oral history, confusion between memoir and oral history—particularly regarding definitions and conceptual understanding—still appears frequently. For many, the distinction between these two terms is not entirely clear; perhaps it would be more precise to say that, while their similarities and interrelations are apparent to many, their differences are often obscure.

It should be noted that acknowledging the difference between memoir (whether written or orally recorded, whether transcribed or otherwise documented) and oral history does not imply that one is inherently preferable to the other. Each of these “recollections” carries its own significance and authority, providing researchers with unique material. At its core, memoir—whether spoken or written—is based on the “self” of the individual recalling the experience. Consequently, memoir is essentially a personal account, reflecting the circumstances and perspective of the narrator. In memoir, we engage with the private and intimate world of the narrator. In other words, a memoir is formed through the lens of the narrator’s perception, interpretation, and recounting of events.

The central element in memoir is the “I” of the narrator, inevitably leaving its imprint on both mind and language. Even when the narrator unintentionally or deliberately errs, or when imagination blends with fact, these personal marks remain. Interestingly, even falsehoods in such narratives can be useful for researchers, revealing certain truths indirectly.

Any artistic or literary decoration in such “recollections” risks compromising the authenticity and alignment between the account and the narrator or between text and subtext. Secondary literary treatments of memoir follow a different route. In this context, memoir testifies to the narrator, not necessarily the event itself. In understanding the character of historical actors and in uncovering cultural-historical data, unprocessed, original materials of this kind are invaluable.

In contrast, in oral history, the text is shaped around the research question posed by the historian. The interviewer elicits testimony from the narrator, treating them as a source, witness, or informant. Accordingly, the professional historian’s interview forms the structure of the text.

Emphasizing “professionalism” and “historian status” signifies that the interviewer is not a passive listener but an active questioner, whose inquiries generate the text and its significance. This highlights that, beyond the private reflections of the narrator, the historian’s inquiry—driven by specific questions—often plays a decisive role in shaping the final account.

I may describe such interviews as a form of reasoning-based interrogation. The term “interrogation” can carry unfavorable connotations in our cultural context due to associations with judicial procedures. However, in its proper sense, it refers to a dialogue aimed at uncovering and analyzing the subject matter. Although few use the term in this sense, careful attention to the “how” and “why” in questioning contributes substantially to understanding events beyond unilateral narration.

In sum, in oral history, the primary effort is directed toward understanding the event itself, making the historian the principal creator of the narrative. This does not, of course, negate the collaborative and interactive role of the narrator and the interviewer in producing a credible and authoritative text.

2. Recently, it has been observed that organizations and institutions involved in the Revolution and the war have produced texts derived from conversations or interviews with participants in historical events and labeled them “oral history.” However, it is important to exercise caution in attributing such “self-reported records” to oral history. Any text created in the style of an oral memoir, even if rich in content, should not automatically be considered oral history. Misapplication of this term risks weakening its true meaning and distancing it from its precise scholarly definition.

Investigation and analysis of past events, conducted outside the framework of self-serving narrative or dramatization, constitutes the historical approach. While this distinction may be challenging to accept, acknowledging it ensures that independent research outputs by participants are recognized and validated by scholars.